By Bill Hartzer · Published · How this site is researched
What happened
Oscar Renee Sandoval was convicted of murdering the mother of his children and sentenced in 2025 to life in prison. The case came from Doña Ana County. Stephen Aarons, a private defense attorney based in Santa Fe, took the appeal to the New Mexico Supreme Court and filed the principal brief.
According to Reuters, the court found that the brief "contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses." The court said the material appeared to include "fictional statements that the shooter was wearing dark pants and a white shirt." The Santa Fe New Mexican reported that the brief referred to several nonexistent witnesses and attributed fictional testimony to at least one real witness.
The defect differs from the usual pattern. Most sanctioned filings contain a hallucinated citation (a reference to a case that does not exist). This brief misstated the trial record itself, which is the factual foundation an appellate court reviews.
Aarons told the court at an August 21, 2026 hearing that he loaded a computer-generated transcript and other case materials into ChatGPT, expecting "a bulletproof summary." In a statement to Reuters he said he "did not understand the degree to which AI could 'hallucinate' facts" and described the episode as "an honest mistake."
What the court did
The court had ordered Aarons to explain how the fabricated material entered the brief. At the August 21 hearing, as reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican the same day, the court found him in contempt, removed him from the appeal, ordered him to pay $5,000 to a client protection fund within 30 days and referred the matter to its Disciplinary Board. Reuters described the $5,000 as a fine and quoted the court as saying Aarons had "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client."
Justice C. Shannon Bacon asked counsel at the hearing whether he followed the news, adding: "Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day."
Reports differ on timing. The Santa Fe New Mexican places the ruling at the Friday, August 21 hearing. Reuters, writing on Friday, September 11, says the court fined and held Aarons in contempt "on Wednesday," which would be September 9 and may refer to a written order. Some republications gave the date as "Wednesday, September 11," which is not a Wednesday. The written order was not located.
Where it stands
Reuters reported that the appeal remains pending and was assigned on September 2, 2026 to Kim Chavez Cook, a New Mexico public defender. Sandoval's challenge to the conviction therefore continues. The Disciplinary Board referral had no reported outcome as of September 11, 2026.
The obligation it engaged
The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority). A summary of testimony is a statement of fact about the record. Each witness and each quoted line had to be confirmed against the transcript before it went into a filing. The same point runs to Clause 4 (checkability before adoption): the transcript was available, so the output could have been checked, and it was not.
Clause 2 (non-delegation) is also engaged. Deciding what the trial evidence showed is the core judgment of appellate advocacy. Handing that task to a system and adopting its account treats the output as a finding. Under the governing test, a competent appellate lawyer working only from the transcript would have produced a summary with real witnesses. The filed brief could not be reproduced that way.
Sources
- Reuters (via Yahoo News) · September 11, 2026
ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, New Mexico high court says - Santa Fe New Mexican · August 21, 2026
New Mexico high court blasts lawyer, takes him off case for AI errors in brief - New York Post · September 11, 2026
Defense lawyer submitted bogus ChatGPT-generated testimony in murder appeal - TimesLIVE (Reuters) · September 11, 2026
ChatGPT invented fake police testimony in murder appeal, US court finds
What could not be confirmed
The written order was not located and no docket number was found. The Santa Fe New Mexican reports the sanctions were imposed at the August 21, 2026 hearing; Reuters says the court acted on Wednesday (September 9, 2026 by calendar). Reports differ on whether the $5,000 is a fine or a payment to a client protection fund. The New York Post article could not be opened; no facts were taken from it.
About this entry
The primary document had not been located when this entry was checked, so it rests on the reporting listed above. The entry for State v. Sandoval records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 11, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the fabricated-authority matters. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].